By means of Kyle Aristophere T. Atienza And Kenneth Christiane L. Basilio, Reporters
The National Security Council (NSC) said on Sunday that any threats to the president’s life are “considered a matter of national security” after Vice President Sara Z. Duterte-Carpio’s assassination comments, which analysts said undermined efforts to enforce government decisions to make policy. driven.
The council said threats against President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. will be validated, noting that his security is an “impartial issue.”
“The matter is now the subject of an ongoing investigation. If the evidence warrants it, it could lead to eventual prosecution,” Cesar B. Chavez, secretary of the Presidential Communications Office, told reporters on Viber, citing the Justice Department.
The Presidential Security Command (PSC) said on Saturday it had “tightened and strengthened” its security protocols following Mrs. Duterte’s comments in which she ordered her security personnel to “kill” the Philippine president and his wife, Marie Louise Araneta-Marcos. as well as Speaker of the House of Representatives Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, if she is killed.
“We are also working closely with law enforcement agencies to detect, deter and defend against any threats to the President and the First Family,” the PSC said, noting Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin’s directive for “immediate appropriate action.”
Any threat to the life of the president and his family, regardless of its origin, “and especially one so brazenly expressed in public,” will be treated with “the utmost seriousness,” it added.
The Philippine military on Saturday called for “calm and resolve” and reiterated that it will remain “impartial” and that its personnel are “loyal to the Constitution and the chain of command.”
“The Vice President’s comment not only brings us back to an elite edition of gutter-level politics, but also to the bankruptcy of our political institutions,” said Gary Ador A. Dionisio, dean of De La Salle – College of Saint Benilde School of Diplomacy and Administration.
“This comment reduces the government to a ‘family feud’ and essentially abandons the policies and programs that are meant to benefit our people,” he added in a Facebook Messenger chat.
At the same time, human rights groups Philippine Alliance for Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) said her comments could worsen the culture of death and impunity in the country. “The human rights community must remain vigilant and proactive in promoting peace, accountability and responsible leadership,” PAHRA Secretary General Edgar Cabalitan said via Messenger chat.
Mrs. Duterte, the country’s second-highest official, made the comment after midnight on Saturday after the House Good Governance Committee ordered the transfer of her chief of staff, Zuleika T. Lopez, to the Mandaluyong Women’s Prison. City from the House of Representatives detention facility.
The vice president has been staying at her brother Davao City Rep.’s office since November 21. Paolo Z. Duterte to gain access to Ms. Lopez, who was cited contemptuously for her alleged evasive answers to questions during the House of Representatives session. investigating Mrs. Duterte’s questionable confidential funds at the Office of the Vice President (OVP) and the Department of Education.
The vice president had said she would remain in her brother’s office as long as OVP staff were detained in the House of Representatives.
DEEPENING THE POLITICAL Divide
Philip Arnold P. Tuaño, dean of the Ateneo School of Government, said Mrs. Duterte’s threats are deepening political divisions in the country.”
“This may distract the government from tackling pressing issues such as poverty, economic recovery and public health,” he said via Messenger chat.
The push for good governance, political reforms and a stable human rights environment are among the casualties amid the growing rift between the Marcos camp and the family of former President Rodrigo R. Duterte, said Maria Ela L. Atienza, a professor of political science. at the University of the Philippines.
“The split that is so apparent now only shows that they are all complicit in maintaining elite politics and patronage,” she said in a Viber message.
Mrs. Atienza had told it Business world weeks after the 2022 presidential election that the supposed unity between the two families could disintegrate at any moment because it was based on patronage and political ambitions and not on sound principles and platforms.
Ateneo Policy Center senior fellow Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco said Mrs. Duterte’s hate speech was “completely disappointing” because as vice president she is a “president-in-waiting and not a president-in-training.”
“This means that the Vice President must be ready to be our President at all times. The vice president must demonstrate the skills and temperament to be the leader of our country,” he said via Messenger chat. “From what happened yesterday it appears that this is not the case.”
Mr Yusingco warned that the intensification of politics would worsen the politicization of institutions within the government.
“An example of this would be the Philippine National Police (PNP) executing orders issued by the House of Representatives. This is highly irregular as the House does not perform any judicial or executive functions,” he said. “And the duty of the PNP is to combat and prevent crimes, neither of which involves dealing with the administrative concerns of the House.”
“So overall, the increased partisanship that is now present could be seriously detrimental to governance with the politicization of the bureaucracy and civil service,” he added.
INCREASING DESPAIR
Ms. Duterte’s outburst could signal a growing desperation to retain power and an attempt to consolidate her political base amid an escalating feud between the two camps.
“The recent outburst may indicate a growing desperation, a crescendo in an overall political strategy of self-destructive aggression,” Anthony Lawrence A. Borja, a professor of political science at De La Salle University, said in a Facebook chat.
Mr. Marcos and Mrs. Duterte had a political alliance in 2022 that delivered landslide victories, with each receiving more than half of all votes cast in the election.
But their relationship soured when the Marcos administration launched an investigation into ex-President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s deadly drug war and the OVP’s controversial spending on secret funds.
“[Saturday’s] The outburst is by far the most threatening since the president’s assassination began to be discussed,” Jean S. Encinas-Franco, who teaches political science at the University of the Philippines, said in a Viber message. “She wanted to show her supporters that she is not bent.”
Some may find her unhinged, but most will find her outbursts ‘authentic’ simply because this is something we don’t see in ‘normal’ politicians.
“The latest developments in the committee hearings have likely convinced it that Chairman Romualdez and President Marcos Jr. are behind this. Vice President Duterte must have sensed that the committee hearings are part of a sinister plot against her,” said Dennis C. Coronacion, head of the University of Sto. Tomas Department of Political Science, said in a Facebook chat.
The Good Governance and Public Accountability Department of the House of Representatives investigated Mrs. Duterte’s alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential and intelligence funds under the 2022 OVP and 2023 Department of Education budgets when she was secretary.
The vice president claimed the hearings lay the groundwork for an impeachment case against her.
“The evidence presented to the House Good Government Panel is revealing enough to demonstrate massive bribery and corruption, which is grounds for impeachment,” National Union of Lawyers President Ephraim B. Cortez said in a statement Viber message.
“If the allegations against her were factually baseless, she could have answered them already,” Edmund Tayao, president of Political Economic Elemental Researchers and Strategists, said in a Viber message.
The grounds for impeachment in the 1987 Constitution include “culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, bribery and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of the public trust.”
The latter clause serves as a catch-all for crimes that are not punishable under the law, but is contrary to the public interest and tends to discredit the office, said Rustico F. de Los Reyes, Jr., member of the Constitutional Commission of 1986.
Mrs. Duterte’s fiery comments against the Marcoses could amount to a betrayal of public trust and violate “the conduct expected of our government officials,” Mr. Cortez said.
The vice president’s comments could be seen as an attempt to “incite the public against the government and hopefully trigger an extra-constitutional event,” Mr Tayao said.